RAIPUR: The legal challenge to the Governor's alleged pocket veto of key Bills passed by the Chhattisgarh Assembly between 2019 and 2023 took a dramatic turn in the High Court on Monday, with the BJP-led state government seeking to withdraw its petition while a tribal activist co-petitioner refused to back down.
The petitions, pending for nearly three years, came up for hearing before Justice AK Prasad.
The dispute dates back to the previous Congress government (2018–2023), when the then Governor withheld assent to several Bills passed by the Assembly without taking a final decision.
This led to two separate petitions, one filed by the then state government and another by tribal activist Sant Kumar Netam, who challenged the delay in granting assent to a Bill proposing an increase in reservation quotas in the state.
"Justice A.K. Prasad heard the long-pending petitions after a hiatus of nearly three years," said advocate Sudiep Shrivastava, counsel for Netam.
During the hearing, Advocate General Vivek Sharma, appearing for the state government, informed the court that the government intended to withdraw its petition and sought time to file a formal application.
However, Netam's counsel opposed the move, saying his client would continue pursuing the case and seek a final decision on the pending Bills by relying on a Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court delivered last year.
Citing Article 200 of the Constitution, Shrivastava argued that while a Governor may assent to a Bill, withhold assent or reserve it for the President's consideration, the Supreme Court has made it clear that a Governor cannot keep Bills pending indefinitely.
He contended that the Constitution Bench ruled that once a Bill is returned to the Assembly, reconsidered and passed again, the Governor is constitutionally bound to grant assent, reaffirming the primacy of the elected legislature in a democracy.
Taking note of the differing positions, Justice Prasad granted the state government two weeks to file its formal application for withdrawal.
The court also directed Netam's counsel to place on record a certified copy of the Supreme Court Constitution Bench judgment before the next hearing.
The outcome of the case remains significant, as several Bills, including the contentious reservation hike Bill and a proposal to rename Kushabhau Thakre University as Chandulal Chandrakar University, remain in legal limbo because they have not received the Governor's assent.
